Daily Archives: April 5, 2017

US Wants ‘Proof’ of Progress by Sudan’s Government on Darfur – Voice of America

Posted: April 5, 2017 at 4:40 pm

UNITED NATIONS

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley said Tuesday the Trump administration wants to see proof from Sudan's government not more words that it is making progress toward peace and protecting civilians in its vast and troubled Darfur region.

A review of the 17,000-strong joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur, which costs over $1 billion annually, is underway. Haley told the Security Council that the Sudanese government has tried to obstruct its operations from day one and is still failing to protect its people.

But against all of these odds, the mission has helped to protect civilians, she said.

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley said the Trump administration wants proof from Sudan's government that it is making progress toward peace and protecting civilians in its vast and troubled Darfur region. Haley addressed the Security Council, April 4, 2017.

Mandate up for renewal

The Sudanese government wants the joint mission, known as UNAMID, to leave. But Haley said after 10 years the council needs to see that the Sudanese government is doing far more to help its people by meeting benchmarks to ensure peace, protect civilians and prevent violence.

It is not enough for the government to promise to do better, she said. We need to see proof.

The UNAMID mandate is up for renewal in June and Haley said the U.S. expects Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' next reports to the council to clearly spell out where Sudan meets these benchmarks and where it does not.

Violence started in 2003

Darfur, which is the size of Spain, erupted in violence in 2003, when ethnic Africans rebelled, accusing the Arab-dominated Sudanese government of discrimination. Khartoum was accused of retaliating by unleashing local nomadic Arab tribes known as the janjaweed on civilians a charge the government denies.

Haley said UNAMID was a lifeline when its peacekeepers deployed in 2007 after more than 200,000 people were dead and 2.4 million had fled their homes. But she said the situation in 2017, while still far from what we hoped it would be 10 years ago, is changing.

In many areas the immediate threat of violence from government confrontations with the armed opposition has passed,'' Haley said. The people need the rule of law, they need police who will respect their human rights and protect them from criminals and militias, and they need help to mediate local disputes so they don't flare up and spread.

She said the United States welcomes that both the government and several opposition groups have announced unilateral cease-fires. She urged that both sides now move toward peace talks.

Troop defections a problem

Haley also urged the main holdout to a cease-fire the Sudan Liberation Army's founder Abdul Wahid Elnur whose forces still hold pockets of territory in Jebel Marra to immediately stop fighting and join the negotiations.

Jeremiah Mamabolo, the new U.N.-AU special representative for Darfur, told the council that Wahid's force can no longer carry out significant military operations and have suffered defections to the government side. But he said Wahid refuses to join the cease-fire.

So far, however, Mamabolo said efforts by the AU, supported by UNAMID, to get the parties to sign a cease-fire agreement and start direct negotiations toward a peace agreement to end the conflict have remained inconclusive.

But he expressed hope that President Omar Bashir's March 8 decree pardoning 259 rebels captured in fighting with government forces including 66 combatants from Darfur on death row will contribute to the firming of mutual trust between the Sudanese parties.

Sudan's U.N. Ambassador Omer Dahab Fadl Mohamed welcomed the unprecedented stability in Darfur and said the extension of the unilateral cease-fire for six months in January is proof of a serious effort to revive peace, end violence, and start reconstruction.

See the original post here:

US Wants 'Proof' of Progress by Sudan's Government on Darfur - Voice of America

Posted in Progress | Comments Off on US Wants ‘Proof’ of Progress by Sudan’s Government on Darfur – Voice of America

DHS: No progress on ‘extreme vetting’ behind purpose of temporary travel ban – USA TODAY

Posted: at 4:40 pm

Passengers use the Automated Passport Control Kiosks set up for international travelers arriving at Miami International Airport on March 4, 2015 in Miami, Florida.(Photo: Joe Raedle, Getty Images)

WASHINGTON Ithas beenmore than two months since President Trump tried to temporarily suspend travel from severalmajority Muslim countries to give his administration time to develop"extreme vetting" procedures against terror-prone countries. Yetthe Department of Homeland Security has not made any progress towardthat goal,the agencysaid Tuesday.

DHS spokesman David Lapan blamed federal court rulings that have blocked the travel ban from taking effect, saying they have "stopped our ability to move forward on those procedures."

That argument was disputed by former DHS officials who served under Democratic and Republican presidents. They said the courts have only restricted portions of Trump's original and revised executive orders and that the department has had no problem updating other security procedures.

"I just dont think thats credible," said Amy Pope, President Barack Obama's deputy Homeland Security adviser, who coordinated vetting procedures andis now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. "Its well within their responsibility and their purview to be doing ongoing analysis of vetting standards based on evolving intelligence, and theres no way to read the court orders as ending that."

James Norton, a deputy assistant secretary at Homeland Security under President George W. Bush, also said the department can still implement much of what Trump intended in his executive orders despite the court rulings.

"Obviously they're not going to defy the court order," said Norton, now the president of Play-Action Strategies, a security consulting firm in Washington, D.C. "But at the same time, I don't think they're sitting around waiting for the court."

Trump signed two executive orders both blocked by courts that tried to halt all travel from the targeted Muslim countries for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days. The first order, signed Jan. 27, banned travel from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The second order, signed March 6, removed Iraq from the list.

As the Department of Justice appeals those rulings, refugees continue entering the United States. Since Trump was inaugurated,the U.S. has taken in 9,268refugees, including 3,138from the six targeted countries. That compares to 13,327 refugees admitted during the same period in 2016, including 3,806 fromthecountries covered by the travel ban.

Read more:

Hawaii judge extends halt on Trump travel ban

Trump's travel ban could cost $18B in U.S. tourism, analysis shows

Toronto schools ban students trips to the USA over Trump concerns

Lapan said the the government has been unable to move forward because the same rulings that blocked the travel ban also blocked their internal review of vetting procedures. A federal judge in Hawaii, who issued a nationwide ban on Trump's order, blocked a section that orders DHS, the Department of State, the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice to review and update vetting procedures against people intent on committing acts of terrorism in the U.S.

He saidthose orders also prevent his agency from gatheringinformation needed to process immigration and refugee applications from the affected countries. He stressed that the department has already changed the way it analyzes all visa requests, a heightened level of scrutiny they want to extend to people targeted by Trump's travel ban.

"We're looking at the information we have received about individuals who want to come here with an eye toward why should this person be allowed to travel to the United States, rather than what can we do to help them get here,'' Lapan said.

The court rulings, however, have not blocked a section of Trump's executive order that allows government agenciesto design enhanced vetting standards for all incoming foreigners. Itdirects DHS, the Department of Justice, the Director of National Intelligence and State Department to implement a program that improves screening of all inbound passengers, regardless of country of origin.

The rulingsalso left untoucheda presidential memorandumTrump issued March 6 the same day he signed hisrevised ban that orders the same departments to implement "enhanced vetting protocols"to stop foreigners entering the country "who may aid, support, or commit violent, criminal, or terrorist acts."

That's why Pope doesn't understand how DHS could argue that theagency's hands are completely tied. "It just doesnt make much sense to me," she said.

Justin Cox, aNational Immigration Law Center attorney whoargued against the ban in court, agreed with Pope thatthe judges' orders don't prevent the administration from developing vetting procedures. "It is in their litigation interest to hyperbolize the degree to which their hands are tied by the courts," he said. "But in reality, their hands are not that tied."

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2nV5az4

Here is the original post:

DHS: No progress on 'extreme vetting' behind purpose of temporary travel ban - USA TODAY

Posted in Progress | Comments Off on DHS: No progress on ‘extreme vetting’ behind purpose of temporary travel ban – USA TODAY

In literature and art from over 100 years ago, images of the cow as mother – The Indian Express

Posted: at 4:36 pm

Written by Radhika Iyengar | Updated: April 5, 2017 8:52 am

The first known cow protection movement began in the 1800s when Hindus were rallied in hordes to stop the slaughter of cattle. Arya Samaj founder Swami Dayanand Saraswati emerged as an early proponent of cow protection, who first published Gokarunanidhi (http://bit.ly/2nzf6fA), a pamphlet in 1881, which circulated his concerns against cattle slaughter. In it, Saraswati stated the economic favourability of cow protection, arguing that a cow was more beneficial to people alive, as opposed to it being dead, since it gave milk and eased agricultural labour. Saraswati later on went to establish a committee for the protection of cows called Gaurakshini Sabha in 1882.

While Saraswati had given economic reasons to support his demand for cow protection, over the years, the cow gained political-religious popularity and prominence. In context to religion, the cow was looked upon as a mother gau-mata for she performed the role of a foster mother, feeding milk to each Hindu. Thus, the Hindu nationalists used the maternal metaphor to sculpt a strong Hindu identity, similar to the one evoked through the image of the country as a maternal figure, that is, Bharat Mata or Motherland. It was the job of a Hindu man therefore, to defend his mother in this case, the cow. The strength of a Hindu man therefore, became inextricably linked to his ability to protect the body of his nurturing mother goddess from non-Hindus.

Of course, the image of a cow as mother then was not useful independently. The image would only be considered functional when it worked towards rallying Hindu men to converge into an army of strong men vigilantes who could defend their gau-mata and their country. In fact, bhajans back in the day fiercely associated a Hindus manhood to his strength in defending the cow. Historian Charu Gupta observed in her paper titled, The Icon of Mother in Late Colonial North India: Bharat Mata, Matri Bhasha and Gau Mata, that bhajans like those by Swami Alaram Sanyasi, fiercely associated a Hindus manhood to his strength in defending the cow. The lyrics stated, Mard unhi ko janen hum jo rakshak hain gau mata ke (We consider as men only those who are the protectors of mother cow).

Even today, there are several bhajans that associate absolute male strength, bravery and vigour with protecting cows. A bhajan sung by Bajrangi Sonji goes like this: Veer-Pandavo kisantano phir maidano mein aao, gau-mata ke praan bacaho inn paapi gadhaaro se. (Children of Veer and Pandavas, return to the arena and protect our mother cow from these treacherous traitors!)

Dutch historian Peter van der Veer explored this relationship drawn between the image of cow and Hindu manliness and authority, in his book Religious Nationalism: Hindus and Muslims in India. He wrote, the image of the cow as a mother, is a crucial image, since as a mother the cow signifies the family and the community at large. She depends on the authority and protection of the male of the family. While mother cow refers to family and nation alike, her protection refers to patriarchal authority and to the Hindu state, the rightful kingdom of Rama. It is within the logic of religious discourse that the protection of the cow become the foremost symbol of the Hindu nation-state.

In the late 1800s, the accessibility of the press, too, assisted in the proliferation of the pro-cow-anti-Muslim ideology. The cow-protection propaganda gained momentum, primarily distancing the Muslims from the Hindus. At that time, handbills and pamphlets began being distributed advocating cow protection, which also pushed Hindus to boycott products sold by Muslims. A 1933 handbill, Charu Gupta noted, which was circulated at the time stated: Gaumata ka Sandesh: Gauraksharth Harek Vastu Hinduon se hi Kharid, which translates to, Message from Mother-Cow: For the Protection of the Cow, Buy Every Item from Hindus Alone.

In addition to the handbills and pamphlets that were widely circulated, newspapers such as Gausewak (in Varanasi) that were sold at railway stations and on the streets, fiercely advocated cow protection, along with bhajans like the Bhajan Gauraksha Gopal Darpan and Bhajan Gauraksha Updesh Manjari (1892), which were written to mobilise Hindu solidarity through the symbolic cow.

While the rift between Hindus and Muslims grew wider, violent riots broke out between the communities regarding cow slaughter. In response, Mahatma Gandhi pointed out the hypocrisy Hindus carried in his piece titled, Let Hindus Beware (dated 1921) where he wrote, To attempt cow protection by violence is to reduce Hinduism to Satanism, and to prostitute to a base end the grand significance of cow protection. In the same piece he said that Hindus were responsible for causing more harm to cows than Muslims, since it were the Hindus who first sheltered their cows and then sold them for export.

Along with the texts, visual images were used to ingrain Hindu fanaticism with relation to the cow. In her paper, Charu Gupta writes that during the period between 1893-1894, apart from handbills and pamphlets, pictures of the cow were also circulated and exhibited at many meetings. One depicted a cow in the act of being slaughtered by three Muslim butchers, and was headed The present state. Another exhibited a cow, in every part of whose body groups of Hindu deities and holy persons were shown. A calf was at her udder, and there was a woman sitting before the calf holding a bowl waiting for her turn. The woman was labelled The Hindu. Behind the cow was a representation of Krishna labelled Dharmraj. In front, a monster was assailing the cow with a drawn sword entitled Kaliyug, but which was largely understood as typifying the Muslim community.

Around the late 1800s, calendar art gained prominence as well. Raja Ravi Varma (1848-1906) was one of the first to put the image of a cow on a calendar, painted to work in tandem with the cow protection movement.According to historian Christopher Pinney (who wrote in his book, Photos of the Gods: the Printed images and Political struggles in India) the riots of 1893 between Hindus and Muslims, which stemmed from anti-cow slaughter movement, assumed an overtly communal flavour. That reflected in the way the Hindu cow was depicted in calendars.

In a calendar that carried a painting titled Chaurasi Devata Auvali Gay (The Cow with Eighty Four Deities, 1912), for example, Hindu gods were shown to be residing within a hapless mother cow, which was being attacked by a toothed, demonic cow-slayer this monstrous matricidal figure, captioned Kaliyug (the demon Kali, personifying evil) in the Varma print, is readily identifiable with the Muslim community (Pinney 1997); or more broadly, with Muslim, Christian and Hindu low-caste beef eaters, observed historian Dilip M. Menon in Cultural History of Modern India. With reference to the same image, Pinney wrote: In the use of these images, a more discriminatory message was stressed in which the cow came to represent a Hindu identity and nationality that required the protection from non-Hindus.

Its important to note how images and text played a significant role in building the narrative of the cow as a mother whose protection by Hindu male was imperative. He was the assigned protector. In the same context, the narrative of the other with regard to the Muslims and Christians, was woven in. This, of course, is not an extensive collection of examples, but it is sufficient to offer a crucial insight.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

See the rest here:

In literature and art from over 100 years ago, images of the cow as mother - The Indian Express

Posted in Modern Satanism | Comments Off on In literature and art from over 100 years ago, images of the cow as mother – The Indian Express

Is Putin the ‘preeminent statesman’ of our times? – Coos Bay World

Posted: at 4:35 pm

"If we were to use traditionalmeasures for understanding leaders, which involve the defense of borders and national flourishing, Putin would count as the preeminent statesman of our time.

"On the world stage, who could vie with him?"

So asks Chris Caldwell of the Weekly Standard in a remarkable essay in Hillsdale College's March issue of its magazine, Imprimis.

What elevates Putin above all other 21st-century leaders?

"When Putin took power in the winter of 1999-2000, his country was defenseless. It was bankrupt. It was being carved up by its new kleptocratic elites, in collusion with its old imperial rivals, the Americans. Putin changed that.

"In the first decade of this century, he did what Kemal Ataturk had done in Turkey in the 1920s. Out of a crumbling empire, he resurrected a national-state, and gave it coherence and purpose. He disciplined his country's plutocrats. He restored its military strength. And he refused, with ever blunter rhetoric, to accept for Russia a subservient role in an American-run world system drawn up by foreign politicians and business leaders. His voters credit him with having saved his country."

Putin's approval rating, after 17 years in power, exceeds that of any rival Western leader. But while his impressive strides toward making Russia great again explain why he is revered at home and in the Russian diaspora, what explains Putin's appeal in the West, despite a press that is every bit as savage as President Trump's?

Answer: Putin stands against the Western progressive vision of what mankind's future ought to be. Years ago, he aligned himself with traditionalists, nationalists and populists of the West, and against what they had come to despise in their own decadent civilization.

And in defying the Americans he speaks for those millions of Europeans who wish to restore their national identities and recapture their lost sovereignty from the supranational European Union. Putin also stands against the progressive moral relativism of a Western elite that has cut its Christian roots to embrace secularism and hedonism.

The U.S. establishment loathes Putin because, they say, he is an aggressor, a tyrant, a "killer." He invaded and occupies Ukraine. His old KGB comrades assassinate journalists, defectors and dissidents.

Yet while politics under both czars and commissars has often been a blood sport in Russia, what has Putin done to his domestic enemies to rival what our Arab ally Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi has done to the Muslim Brotherhood he overthrew in a military coup in Egypt?

What has Putin done to rival what our NATO ally President Erdogan has done in Turkey, jailing 40,000 people since last July's coup or our Philippine ally Rodrigo Duterte, who has presided over the extrajudicial killing of thousands of drug dealers?

Much of the hostility toward Putin stems from the fact that he not only defies the West, when standing up for Russia's interests, he often succeeds in his defiance and goes unpunished and unrepentant.

There is another reason Putin is viewed favorably. Millions of ethnonationalists who wish to see their nations secede from the EU see him as an ally. While Putin has openly welcomed many of these movements, America's elite do not take even a neutral stance.

Putin has read the new century better than his rivals. While the 20th century saw the world divided between a Communist East and a free and democratic West, new and different struggles define the 21st.

The new dividing lines are between social conservatism and self-indulgent secularism, between tribalism and transnationalism, between the nation-state and the New World Order.

On the new dividing lines, Putin is on the side of the insurgents. Those who envision de Gaulle's Europe of Nations replacing the vision of One Europe, toward which the EU is heading, see Putin as an ally.

So the old question arises: Who owns the future?

In the new struggles of the new century, it is not impossible that Russia as was America in the Cold War may be on the winning side. Secessionist parties across Europe already look to Moscow rather than across the Atlantic.

"Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism," writes Caldwell. "That turns out to be the big battle of our times. As our last election shows, that's true even here."

See the original post here:

Is Putin the 'preeminent statesman' of our times? - Coos Bay World

Posted in Hedonism | Comments Off on Is Putin the ‘preeminent statesman’ of our times? – Coos Bay World

Going overboard with cow protection – Livemint

Posted: at 4:34 pm

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar had attracted the ire of traditionalists when he wrote more than once that the cow is not a divine mother but only a useful animal. A substance is edible to the extent that it is beneficial to man. Attributing religious qualities to it gives it a godly status. Such a superstitious mindset destroys the nations intellect, he wrote in 1935.

Recent events have not been a good advertisement for the national intellect. The party that pays homage to Savarkar has never come to terms with his modernist rationalism. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Gujarat has amended a state law so that anybody found guilty of cow slaughter will be awarded a life sentence. The chief minister of Chhattisgarh has said that those who kill cows in his state will be hanged. Even acts of homicide or sexual assault do not usually result in the hanging of the guilty.

Meanwhile, there is a massive crackdown on abattoirs by the new state government in Uttar Pradesh, ostensibly targeted at illegal establishments, but clearly trying to hurt the Muslim community that dominates the meat trade. Congress leaders such as Digvijaya Singh have said his party will back a nationwide beef bana useful reason to remember that the original laws against cow slaughter were introduced in many states when the Congress was the hegemonic force in Indian politics. This also opens up the possibility of competitive cow politics. And footloose vigilantes have taken it upon themselves to attack any person they believe is harming the sanctity of the cow, even by just throwing a stone at an animal.

There have traditionally been two main arguments in favour of cow protection. First, the cow is the pivot of an agricultural economy. Second, it is central to Hindu religious beliefs. Neither of these two arguments can justify the harsh punishments that are rather casually being talked about.

The economic argument does not survive an empirical test. First, as farming in India becomes increasingly mechanized, the demand for draught cattle in the fields is falling. Second, as milk-producing cows grow old and become unproductive, they become a financial burden on farmers. If farmers cannot sell them off to slaughterhouses, they either abandon the animals or starve them to death.

Third, the rational response by farmers to the ban on cow slaughter has been to prefer buffaloes to cows, as is evident from both the official cattle census as well as price trends in cattle auctions across the country. The economics of an asset totally changes when its terminal value suddenly comes down to zero. Economists such as V.M. Dandekar and K.N. Raj showed many years ago that the factors determining cattle population are not slaughter bans or religious sentiments but the demand for livestock products such as milk and meat as well as the levels of technology used in agriculture.

Indeed, the directive principle of state policy that says cow slaughter should be prohibited is itself derived from the economic argument. Article 48 of the Indian Constitution needs to be read in full: The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

The issue of religious sentiments is a more tricky one. There is ample proof in old religious texts that beef-eating was not uncommon in ancient India. However, that does not necessarily mean that the current generation of Hindus should not worship the cow. There is also the undeniable fact that cow slaughter was one of the flashpoints in medieval India under Muslim rule. The real issue right now is that the state has no right to send someone to jail for killing an animal.

It is also important to remember that beef is one of the cheapest sources of protein. Some 80 million Indians eat either beef or buffalo meat, including 12.5 million Hindus, as shown in an article by Roshan Kishore and Ishan Anand in this newspaper in October 2015, based on their detailed analysis of sample data.

This does not mean that devout Hindus who worship the cow should not voluntarily devote themselves to its protection by setting up gaushalas, or cow shelters, though there simply arent enough of these to cater to the growing number of abandoned cattle. The problem lies elsewhere. Bans on the killing of cows are in effect a burden on farmers who own cattle. Punishment for consumption of beef is an attack on the basic Constitutional right of every citizen to live the life she wants to.

Do you think governments are justified in banning cow slaughter? Tell us at views@livemint.com

First Published: Thu, Apr 06 2017. 12 32 AM IST

View post:

Going overboard with cow protection - Livemint

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off on Going overboard with cow protection – Livemint

Divided We Stand: Area Scholar Examines How We Got This Way – Patch.com

Posted: at 4:34 pm


Patch.com
Divided We Stand: Area Scholar Examines How We Got This Way
Patch.com
... anti-intellectualism is exceptionally strong in parts of America. This fosters anti-rationalism, skepticism of education and receptiveness to propaganda like conspiracy theories. Second, Christian fundamentalism can exacerbate certain ideological ...

Continued here:

Divided We Stand: Area Scholar Examines How We Got This Way - Patch.com

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off on Divided We Stand: Area Scholar Examines How We Got This Way – Patch.com

Islamic extremism results in less freedom of speech – Washington Times

Posted: at 4:33 pm

Islamic extremism results in less freedom of speech
Washington Times
But the biggest news is this: Canada is now considering criminalizing free speech where Islam is concerned. Last month, Iqra Khalid, a Pakistani-born Liberal member of Parliament, introduced into the House of Commons Motion 103. It calls for a study ...

and more »

More:
Islamic extremism results in less freedom of speech - Washington Times

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Islamic extremism results in less freedom of speech – Washington Times

Fighting words: The campus free speech battle at UW often focuses … – Madison.com

Posted: at 4:32 pm

As Ben Shapiro delivered a speech called Dismantling Safe Spaces: Facts Dont Care About Your Feelings to an overflow crowd of 450 at University of Wisconsin-Madison in November, a group of about 20 protesters stood up and began to chant Safety! Safety!

They were met by shouts of Free speech matters! from many in the audience.

Shapiro, a conservative political commentator, used the interruption to write the word MORONS on the blackboard of the lecture hall in the Social Sciences Building.

Protesters lined up in front of the stage, their shouts about feeling at risk on campus drowned out by retorts from the audience. After some 10 minutes of chaos, the protesters filed out of the room, reportedly after being threatened with arrest by UW Police officers.

Na na na na! Na na na na! Hey, hey, hey! Goodbye! Shapiros fans taunted.

F*** white supremacy! a protester yelled as a parting shot.

Shapiro, from the stage, flipped off the protesters with both hands.

The whole scene was captured on video, viewable on the web site of Young Americas Foundation, the national conservative organization that helped bankroll Shapiros appearance.

The confrontation had a lot in common with others that have taken place at college campuses across the country over the past couple of years.

Students who feel marginalized on campus by race, gender or sexual orientation and their allies are engaged in a battle over safe spaces with classmates who insist they, and the speakers they invite to campus, can say what they like, no matter who finds it offensive.

Its a culture war for the 21st century that some say threatens Americas bedrock value of freedom of speech.

There have been skirmishes over free speech in classrooms, dorms, even the stands at Camp Randall Stadium. But exchanges have been most intense and most public around guest speaker lecterns.

Milo Yiannopoulos, provocateur and former editor at Breitbart News Network, ridiculed a transgender student by name while speaking in December at UW-Milwaukee. His scheduled appearance at University of California, Berkeley, in February touched off a riot that forced its cancellation.

And last month, protesters at Middlebury College in Vermont shut down a talk by controversial social scientist Charles Murray and attacked a professor, who was injured in the melee.

Opponents of speakers like Shapiro, Yiannopoulos and Murray argue that bringing them to campus amounts to attacking students of color.

Safe spaces for marginalized groups are really important, said Ricardo Cortez de la Cruz II, a UW-Madison junior and member of the Black Liberation Action Coalition. People who ridicule the idea of safe spaces dont know what it feels like to be oppressed or deal with microaggressions day to day.

UW-Madison professor emeritus Donald Downs, a free speech authority, countered that allowing groups to silence speakers is dangerous to freedom of expression.

Here comes a speaker who students say violates safe space by being on campus, Downs said. Boy, thats the end of free speech, because you have completely conflated speech and action.

The right to freedom of speech is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Congress shall make no lawabridging the freedom of speech.

UW-Madison student Ricardo Cortez de la Cruz II: As a rapper, I wouldnt like my speech to be limited just because I say something offensive.

What that means in practice has evolved in a body of case law, developed in court rulings.

Since the 1940s, courts have defined that freedom in terms of broad categories of protected and unprotected speech, said UW-Madison professor Howard Schweber.

Unprotected speech, which the government can silence, includes blackmail, threats, false advertising, conspiracy, libel, treason and fighting words, Schweber said.

The doctrine comes from a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which described unprotected speech as words which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, Schweber quoted in an email.

Speech that is objectively threatening may be banned, but the mere subjective feeling of being threatened by someones speech is not enough to justify such a restriction, said Schweber, a liberal-leaning professor of political science and First Amendment scholar.

Thats not to say that a symbolic threat cannot be objectively threatening, he said. For example, the Supreme Court has declared that cross burning is a threat that may be banned.

Speech condemning anothers speech a protest is protected, Schweber said.

Champions of free speech in America have traditionally emerged from the political left, rather than right, Schweber said.

It is only in the modern era that we have the spectacle of conservatives bridling against the perceived restrictions of political correctness and institutions such as universities attempting to limit the expression of right-wing sentiments, he said.

De la Cruz is a poet and rapper and part of UW-Madisons First Wave, a hip-hop learning community. He said he dreams of mounting a debate with campus conservatives in the spirit of James Baldwins famous 1965 debate at Cambridge University with William F. Buckley: Is the American Dream at the expense of the American Negro?

I think that would be powerful and impactful. Regardless of whether or not you agree, you learn from hearing other peoples perspectives. You dont grow without doing that, he said.

De la Cruz was among those who disrupted Shapiros talk in November, an action he called necessary.

He was persuading a room full of people to dismantle safe spaces. I dont trust that the people in that room will understand what hes saying. What I mean by that is they may feel empowered by his speech to hang nooses from the balcony of a frat house, call black people names on the street or make fun of LGBT members, he said.

Offensive speech, then, should be allowed unless it is threatening someone elses feelings or falls into racism or fighting words, he said.

I think thats when it comes into hate speech, de la Cruz said. As a rapper, of course, I wouldnt like my speech to be limited just because I say something offensive.

Provocative language in rap may be hyperbole, a bit of truth exaggerated to make it more creative thats when offense is cool, he said.

If his rap touching on the historic oppression of black people offends white listeners, de la Cruz said the question would be, Not are you offended, but are you triggered to the point where you think of what you did to us?

UW-Madison student Rose Klein believes speech that ridicules the concept of systemic discrimination creates a climate encouraging not only hate speech, but physical violence as well.

Klein, who is transgender, was an organizer of the protest against Shapiro and helped lead the chants that briefly silenced him.

Chair Kara Bell, left, and treasurer Michelle Walker discuss free speech in the office of the UW-Madison chapter of Young Americans for Freedom.

I entered that space willingly and knew there was a chance I might actually be physically beaten, but I was taking that risk, Klein said. Protesters were outnumbered and she speculated they may have been protected from violence only by the presence of police.

Klein argued the university should take a proactive, rather than reactive, strategy against hate speech and violence. That means not tolerating speech like Shapiros.

We didnt think the university should have let Ben Shapiro on campus in the first place. It was completely not in their interests. That was part of the reason for our protest, Klein said.

Hosting Ben Shapiro in the fall was our way of establishing ourselves as a conservative group on campus, Bell said. We knew he could combat lots of liberal arguments in a way that reflects our chapters values and beliefs. He was definitely the right choice.

Bell said participation in YAF has increased since Shapiros speech. The club paid his fee of around $15,000 using a $4,000 grant from student fees through Associated Students of Madison and a grant from the national YAF office, she said. Shapiro also gave the club a discount.

UW-Madison police waived their usual fee after it became clear in the days before the speech that security would be needed, Bell said. Protesters posted on social media that YAF was ended and the event cancelled, she said.

UW-Madison administrators told her they had received complaints that students would feel victimized by Shapiros likely speech, Bell said. She told them that Shapiro would talk about the ideology of safe spaces and trigger warnings and microaggressions.

Bell said protesters violated campus behavior guidelines by blocking the audiences view of Shapiro and temporarily drowning him out. Nevertheless, she called the talk a big success.

It was inspirational to conservative students, she said.

Student Michelle Walker, treasurer of the YAF chapter, said she doesnt understand the protesters complaints.

I dont know how his words make them feel unsafe. They are just words, Walker said. All he does is state his opinion and back it up with facts.

Shapiro has never been violent in his campus appearances, she said.

I am totally OK with people protesting the event. The only time theres an issue is when they are disrupting it. We allow them their free speech, but theyre impeding Shapiros right to free speech, Walker said.

His speech was right on target, she said.

Every day I hear more about safe spaces and microaggressions on college campuses. Things like safe spaces violate free speech because youre not allowed to say whatever you want, she said.

You should be able to have safe space within your home, but a public university should not define a space where you cant say things because its publicly funded.

It is not clear whether such acts as mandating sensitivity training, disinviting speakers or requiring trigger warnings violate constitutional guarantees of free expression, said Downs, a conservative First Amendment scholar.

Downs helped overturn a campus speech code implemented by UW in the 1990s, but this latest round of calls to limit free speech is being generated by students to a greater degree, he said.

Religion scholar Reza Aslan filled the Wisconsin Union Theater for a talk on Islamophobia in America on March 29. Despite the controversial topic, there were no insults hurled, no rude gestures made.

It creates a kind of chilling effect on campus, he said. Im being told all over campus, students are just not saying things that they think will rock the boat. Theyre afraid to speak out because the goalposts keep changing, because theyre afraid theyre going to get ostracized on social media, because of all the browbeating going on.

Downs said he thinks UW-Madison is doing a good job of moving toward the delicate balance of free speech and an environment conducive to learning.

Universities have a duty to have students feel safe from physical harm. But safety from ideas is an entirely different matter, Downs said. Our ideas should always be open to challenge. Physical safety is important. But no one should feel intellectually safe.

Students also have a right to criticize, even protest, offensive speech as a protected right of expression, Downs said, but not to silence speakers. That violates the speakers right to free expression, as well those of the sponsoring group and the audience.

Whats more, such obstructive behavior violates university norms, he said.

We have a distinctive role in society and that is to pursue the truth, Downs said. Thats why we get the privileges and rights we have in society without outside intervention.

Conservatives may have been the most vocal champions of free speech in recent years, but the recent violence at Middlebury College has been a turning point, Downs said.

That was a mob action purely because of Murrays ideas, he said. A lot of people are alarmed: conservative, liberals, moderates.

Indeed, there has been much soul-searching since the March 2 incident, particularly in the higher education press.

One college instructor wrote that it is precisely because academics give credence to the concepts of safe spaces and microaggressions that they should be open to rigorous debate.

And Jose B. Gonzalez, a professor of English, told Inside Higher Education that college leaders should hesitate before criticizing the students at Middlebury who interrupted Murray. Their actions were more than a criticism of that speaker, he said.

They arise from a higher ed system that negates the existence of suppressed views, he said. I am sure college presidents don't want to hear that their institutions are broken in some form, but they need to reflect on what made students take on this activism.

The resolution calls for a free and open exchange of ideas at UW System colleges and universities, and says institutions must not act to inhibit debate, even if topics or arguments are unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.

At UW-Madison, officials posted guidelines online referring to administrative rules governing the UW System after receiving requests for guidance following Shapiros appearance.

Protests are a part of a vibrant campus community; we facilitate them to ensure they do not jeopardize free speech, teaching, research or safety, spokeswoman Meredith McGlone wrote in an email.

Successful facilitation safely provides for the expression of First Amendment rights while at the same time not infringing any other individuals First Amendment rights.

While voluntary compliance is the goal, the university states its intention to employ a range of measures, from discipline to arrest, in response to situations that disrupt the universitys mission.

The university does not have guidelines on who may speak on campus, McGlone said, but policies on facilities use prioritize activities that promote teaching, research and public service. Outside speakers must be invited or sponsored by a campus department or organization.

We do plan to remind student organizations in the fall to reach out in advance regarding events that may have security needs so we can work with them to ensure a safe and successful event, McGlone said.

In the current political climate, as university officials develop programs to cultivate a welcoming climate for all students, some speakers, like Shapiro, are likely to provoke a backlash.

But free expression can thrive in an era of expanding inclusivity, said Lori Berquam, vice provost and dean of students.

We believe that inclusivity and free expression are not mutually exclusive in fact, we think they depend on one another, Berquam said in a statement. But we also recognize that students may not arrive on campus fully equipped with the skills to navigate difficult conversations respectfully and compassionately. Our approach is to ensure that our policies on speech apply equally to all viewpoints, as the Constitution requires, and to engage our students through programs like Our Wisconsin so they can learn how to live and work effectively with Badgers of all backgrounds.

Our Wisconsin is a cultural diversity training program introduced this academic year.

The Wisconsin Unions popular Distinguished Lecture Series has seen its share of controversial speakers over the years.

Free tickets to hear conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly had to be picked up in advance and were limited to one per person in 1993 in the hopes of defusing protests, according to news reports.

Spectators wait to ask questions of speaker Reza Aslan at the Wisconsin Union Theater in March.We believe that inclusivity and free speech are not mutually exclusive in fact, we think they depend on one another," said Lori Berquam, UW-Madison vice provost and dean of students.

Campus LGBT groups staged silent protests to greet an appearance by religious right leader Ralph Reed in 1998.

But under the current leadership of William Rosenthal, director of a student committee that selects the speakers, it is excellence, not controversy, that determines who takes the stage.

We never select a speaker based on political ideology, said Rosenthal. We want to select topics that are important for people to be more informed about and on which we can find educated speakers to broaden peoples ideas.

Expertise in their field is the first criteria, Rosenthal said. After that is a desire to present a variety of topics, so the series is not drawing the same crowd over and over again, he said.

Student Deshawn McKinney, director of the Wisconsin Union Directorate, praised Rosenthal for bringing in speakers to address topics outside the social sciences, a concentration of the past.

The folks brought in this year appeal to different communities, he said. We want to be the living room for everyone on campus, a place to come in and engage in conversation.

But its not about avoiding controversy, Rosenthal said.

We just try to make sure our speakers are high quality. And a lot of controversial issues a lot of people who talk about them dont necessarily add anything to the discussion, he said.

On March 29, the lecture series hosted Reza Aslan, an author, religious scholar and host of the CNN documentary series Believer. Aslan ran into controversy from Indian-American communities in some cities after an episode of that program showed him eating human brains with a Hindu sect.

But there was little sign of opposition when Aslan spoke to a full house at the Wisconsin Union Theater about the controversial issue of Islamophobia in America.

Aslan traced attitudes toward Muslims and anti-Muslim activities to statements made by high-ranking officials in President Donald Trumps administration. That includes pushing the idea that Islam is not a religion, but a political force.

If Islam is not a religion, it doesnt enjoy religious protection under the Constitution. This is a deliberate attempt to denationalize Muslim-Americans, Aslan said. This is no longer just on the fringes; it is at the highest levels of our government.

Maybe it was owing to the overall liberal bent of the UW-Madison and Madison communities, but only a couple of those taking the mic for a question-and-answer session after his talk probed Aslan about Islamic violence they said was encouraged in the Quran.

Aslan deftly disarmed their queries, citing passages that call for violence in both the Quran and the Bible.

Thats the thing about scriptures, he said, theres something for everyone.

View original post here:
Fighting words: The campus free speech battle at UW often focuses ... - Madison.com

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Fighting words: The campus free speech battle at UW often focuses … – Madison.com

Campus police, freedom of speech bills go different directions in ND Legislature – Prairie Business

Posted: at 4:32 pm

SB 2193 would expand jurisdiction lines to allow campus police to make arrests and issue tickets in a limited range projected beyond their schools and into their surrounding cities. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate and cleared the House last Friday with a 71-21 vote. This week, its on its way to Gov. Doug Burgum for his signature.

Including the University of North Dakota, the campuses that have their own police units are North Dakota State University and North Dakota State College of Science in Wahpeton.

Leaders from Grand Forks, including those in the Legislature as well as local law enforcement and city officials, largely supported SB 2193, which they characterized as filling gaps in service. The bill is now subject to emergency measure, meaning the final law would go into effect immediately upon signature by the North Dakota secretary of state, a step that follows the governors approval and ends the legislative process.

Before the bill was cleared by the House, it was amended to delineate the expanded jurisdiction areas on a street-by-street basis for each of the three municipalities that now have campus police departments.

The other bill wont get as far as that. House Bill 1329 took aim at safe spaces on college campuses and called on the State Board of Higher Education, the governing body of the North Dakota university system, to adopt more rigorous protections for free speech. Though it passed 65-25 in the House, HB 1329 was defeated Friday in the Senate by a vote of 37-7.

Rep. Rick Becker, the sponsor of HB 1329, described the bill as a rejection of political correctness gone crazy. He said the proposal would have prevented universities from enacting policies that would discourage free expression.

The bill received do not pass recommendations before each vote from legislative education committees whose members cautioned the proposal could create issues for the SBHE while duplicating protections already provided by the Constitution and rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read more here:
Campus police, freedom of speech bills go different directions in ND Legislature - Prairie Business

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Campus police, freedom of speech bills go different directions in ND Legislature – Prairie Business

Journalists in Mexico killed in record numbers along with freedom of speech – Fox News

Posted: at 4:32 pm

MEXICO CITY One of the last stories that Mexican journalist Miroslava Breach published before she was brutally gunned down in front of her son was on how drug cartels were covertly backing mayoral candidates in a region notorious for its opium and marijuana production.

On March 23, the 54-year-old correspondent for Chihuahuas La Jornada became the 30th journalist murdered in the country since 2012.

MEXICAN JOURNALIST SHOT DEAD IN NORTHERN STATE OF CHIHUAHUA

According to Reporters without Borders, Mexico is currently the most dangerous country in the world for journalists, with nine media professionals murdered in 2016 alone.

The effect of the violence is a kind of self-censorship, said Javier Valdez, an award-winning reporter who worked with Breach in northwest Mexico. You have to know the rules how the gangs or police or a local politician here or there will respond to a certain story but those rules can change quickly, he told Fox News.

ANOTHER JOURNALIST SLAIN IN MEXICO'S VIOLENT VERACRUZ STATE

These are impossible conditions in which to practice journalism, Valdez said.

Last month alone five journalist were targeted across the country three of them fatally.

While organized crime hangs over the majority of reporters deaths, occasionally the motives are hard to pinpoint. Ricardo Monlui, a newspaper columnist in Veracruz who was shot March 19 by a gunman on a motorcycle, mostly covered issues relating to the sugar-cane industry.

As for Breach, she uncovered many scandals along her 20-year career, yet colleagues and state officials believe her work on the political activities of drug traffickers is what ultimately led to her murder.

Miroslava documented and denounced the links between state politics and drug trafficking, said Chihuahua Governor Javier Corral, who knew Breach personally, during a radio interview.

MEXICAN NEWSPAPER CLOSES CITING INSECURITY FOR JOURNALISTS

In view of the rising number of journalists being targeted, the Mexican government created the Special Prosecutor's Office for Crimes against Freedom of Expression (FEADLE) to investigate all known cases since 2006.

According to a recentfreedom of informationrequest made by the Mexican news outlet Animal Poltico,in the past seven years FEADLE has opened 798 investigations into aggressions against journalists,which included47 murders, but only three caseshave resulted in a criminal conviction.

For Esteban Illades, a leading Mexico City journalist, the problem of impunity can partly be traced to a taut relationship between media and authorities and a notoriously dysfunctional criminal justice system in which startlingly few crimes are solved.

Historically, in Mexico the government has failed to understand the role of the press and the difficulties they face in doing their jobs, Illades told Fox News. The criminal justice systems at both the state and federal level are simply inadequate.

Mexico has seen widespread drug violence since the mid-2000s when the federal government launched a crackdown on organized crime. Ironically, the attacks against journalists in recent years have come as the country transitioned into a competitive democracy after 71 years of one-party rule and the media once largely state-controlled gained unprecedented freedom.

Yet according to Illades, solidarity among Mexican media outlets and journalists is weak.

The guild of journalists in Mexico is very fragmented, there are diverse groups with diverse loyalties, he said. Almost no one supports another journalist who is threatened. On the contrary, Ive seen journalists celebrate threats against others because of the kind of work they do.

Paul Imison is a freelance journalist based in Mexico City. Follow him on Twitter: @paulimison

Like us on FacebookFollow us on Twitter & Instagram

Read the original:
Journalists in Mexico killed in record numbers along with freedom of speech - Fox News

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Journalists in Mexico killed in record numbers along with freedom of speech – Fox News